MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752693996 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0759

A vertebrate retina with segregated colour and polarization sensitivity

2017· article· en· W2752693996 on OpenAlexafffund
Iñigo Novales Flamarique

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetinaRetinalBiologyOptic nerveEngraulisAnatomyNeuroscienceAnchovy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Besides colour and intensity, some invertebrates are able to independently detect the polarization of light. Among vertebrates, such separation of visual modalities has only been hypothesized for some species of anchovies whose cone photoreceptors have unusual ultrastructure that varies with retinal location. Here, I tested this hypothesis by performing physiological experiments of colour and polarization discrimination using the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax . Optic nerve recordings showed that the ventro-temporal (VT), but not the ventro-nasal (VN), retina was polarization sensitive, and this coincided with the exclusive presence of polarization-sensitive photoreceptors in the VT retina. Spectral (colour) sensitivity recordings from the VN retina indicated the contribution of two spectral cone mechanisms to the optic nerve response, whereas only one contributed to the VT retina. This was supported by the presence of only one visual pigment in the VT retina and two in the VN retina, suggesting that only the VN retina was associated with colour sensitivity. Behavioural tests further demonstrated that anchovies could discriminate colour and the polarization of light using the ventral retina. Thus, in analogy with the visual system of some invertebrates, the northern anchovy has a retina with segregated retinal pathways for colour and polarization vision.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207